Fitzgerald ''better" have Proof for "original" indictment (1 Viewer)

[Stu Ghatze]

And....not some vague phoney charge of lying based on somebody's inability to remember every word spoken in order to indict for by being very creative in his zest to prosecute!!

We MUST remember that Willie Clinton HIMSELF could NOT remember statements, or words ...& 267 times Slick Willie said simply, I don't remember".

We MUST also remember that partisan politics, & an aggressive prosecutor did NOT indict Clinton for wrongdoing, ...HIS OWN DNA LEFT ON THE BLUE DRESS CAUGHT HIM IN LYING TO A JUDGE, & PROSECUTOR which WAS central to the whole charge of lying to a federal grand jury, as his OWN DNA convicted him of "having sexual relations with that woman"!

If Fitzgerald has no proof of anybody deliberately "outing" Valerie PLame as PAYBACK, & has NO proof of intent, or the knowledge of even anybody knowing IF she was a covert CIA employee, ..the whole investigation better end tommorow, ...rather than take on a new twist of seeking some creative inventive charges of wrongdoing elsewhere in order to prosecute because of lack of real evidence to the specific reason for the grand jury that was put together in the first place!

If it turns out to be a witch hunt, ...It WILL be seen as exactly just that, & the phoney Joe Wilson will NOT be the vehicle that brings democrats any real empowerment in 08', & that is for damn sure!

 

[Binary_Digit]

I hope he has good evidence too. I'd hate to think 2 years and however much money spent for nothing.

 

[aps]

Here is the statute:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."

Therefore, the defendant must:

(1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

(2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

(3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

(4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent; and

(5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

Whether Fitzgerald can prove the above remains to be seen.

 

[galenrox]

yeah, damn Fitzgerald, hypothetically giving out phoney indictments in this hypothetical situation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Theres more than one law that applies to folks even if they do work in or around the White House. Breaking any one of them would constitute a crime. The statute partially quoted above does not constitute the be all and end all of the affair.

 

[Iriemon]

I hope he has good evidence too. I'd hate to think 2 years and however much money spent for nothing.

Yeah -- how much did the Whitewater investigation cost? 43 million?

 

[Kandahar]

And....not some vague phoney charge of lying based on somebody's inability to remember every word spoken in order to indict for by being very creative in his zest to prosecute!!

We MUST remember that Willie Clinton HIMSELF could NOT remember statements, or words ...& 267 times Slick Willie said simply, I don't remember".

We MUST also remember that partisan politics, & an aggressive prosecutor did NOT indict Clinton for wrongdoing, ...HIS OWN DNA LEFT ON THE BLUE DRESS CAUGHT HIM IN LYING TO A JUDGE, & PROSECUTOR which WAS central to the whole charge of lying to a federal grand jury, as his OWN DNA convicted him of "having sexual relations with that woman"!

If Fitzgerald has no proof of anybody deliberately "outing" Valerie PLame as PAYBACK, & has NO proof of intent, or the knowledge of even anybody knowing IF she was a covert CIA employee, ..the whole investigation better end tommorow, ...rather than take on a new twist of seeking some creative inventive charges of wrongdoing elsewhere in order to prosecute because of lack of real evidence to the specific reason for the grand jury that was put together in the first place!

If it turns out to be a witch hunt, ...It WILL be seen as exactly just that, & the phoney Joe Wilson will NOT be the vehicle that brings democrats any real empowerment in 08', & that is for damn sure!

My god, you are such an idiot.

You have no idea what (if any) evidence Fitzgerald has, and you have no idea what (if any) charges he plans to bring against Rove/Libby. It doesn't matter, because you'll condemn him anyway no matter what happens in the next few days. If he doesn't bring any charges, you'll condemn him for wasting taxpayer's time and money. If he brings charges of perjury (which you supported against Bill Clinton), you'll condemn him for not prosecuting the original crime. If he brings charges of outing a CIA agent, you'll condemn the charges as false (even before seeing the evidence). If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby came to your house and personally admitted wrongdoing to you, you'd condemn Fitzgerald for bullying them into a false confession.

Can you please, for one second of your life, stop being so blindly partisan?

 

[aps]

My god, you are such an idiot.

You have no idea what (if any) evidence Fitzgerald has, and you have no idea what (if any) charges he plans to bring against Rove/Libby. It doesn't matter, because you'll condemn him anyway no matter what happens in the next few days. If he doesn't bring any charges, you'll condemn him for wasting taxpayer's time and money. If he brings charges of perjury (which you supported against Bill Clinton), you'll condemn him for not prosecuting the original crime. If he brings charges of outing a CIA agent, you'll condemn the charges as false (even before seeing the evidence). If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby came to your house and personally admitted wrongdoing to you, you'd condemn Fitzgerald for bullying them into a false confession.

Can you please, for one second of your life, stop being so blindly partisan?

He can't Kandahar. He's watching Fox News and then coming on here and reporting what he heard there....the poor thing.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Yeah -- how much did the Whitewater investigation cost? 43 million?

You make a good point. But...on the otherhand, the Clinton's NEVER had a pot to pis.s in until AFTER their association in "whitewater", yes ..THEY benefitted quite handsomely financially of course, & had somebody ELSE take the bullet for them!

 

[Stu Ghatze]

My god, you are such an idiot.

You have no idea what (if any) evidence Fitzgerald has, and you have no idea what (if any) charges he plans to bring against Rove/Libby. It doesn't matter, because you'll condemn him anyway no matter what happens in the next few days. If he doesn't bring any charges, you'll condemn him for wasting taxpayer's time and money. If he brings charges of perjury (which you supported against Bill Clinton), you'll condemn him for not prosecuting the original crime. If he brings charges of outing a CIA agent, you'll condemn the charges as false (even before seeing the evidence). If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby came to your house and personally admitted wrongdoing to you, you'd condemn Fitzgerald for bullying them into a false confession.

Can you please, for one second of your life, stop being so blindly partisan?

You are quite correct you know! I have NO idea what evidence exists if any to indict, or aquit.

So.....when I see YOU speak out, & critiscise the g-damn media for engaging in the VERY same thing I'am doing right at the moment, ..I will believe that you are NOT partisan either!

The difference here is that YOU want to believe the things the media THINKS it knows about the investigation, ..all I want it to be IS ABOUT THE G-DAMN truth OF THE original charge, if there is any charge forthcoming!

Cheers...:2wave:

 

[cnredd]

My god, you are such an idiot.

You have no idea what (if any) evidence Fitzgerald has, and you have no idea what (if any) charges he plans to bring against Rove/Libby. It doesn't matter, because you'll condemn him anyway no matter what happens in the next few days. If he doesn't bring any charges, you'll condemn him for wasting taxpayer's time and money. If he brings charges of perjury (which you supported against Bill Clinton), you'll condemn him for not prosecuting the original crime. If he brings charges of outing a CIA agent, you'll condemn the charges as false (even before seeing the evidence). If Karl Rove and Scooter Libby came to your house and personally admitted wrongdoing to you, you'd condemn Fitzgerald for bullying them into a false confession.

Can you please, for one second of your life, stop being so blindly partisan?

I don't know if either of them broke any federal laws. I do believe that they leaked information to reporters, with the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. That may or may not fall into the category of a felony, depending on whether or not the information was actually classified and whether or not they knew it was classified at the time. However, both Libby and Rove clearly leaked the information for petty, vindictive reasons, and should resign even if they are not guilty of breaking the law.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=119248&postcount=5

It seems the glass houses have been shattered...:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=119248&postcount=5

It seems the glass houses have been shattered...:roll:

Did I say that I was 100% positive that they'd both committed crimes and definitely need lengthy prison sentences? No. I'm not the one prejudging this case.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=119248&postcount=5

It seems the glass houses have been shattered...:roll:

Hi cnredd, .....YOU are probably like a bad penny that just showed up for Kandahar!

He is CONVINCED that Cheney & company leaked info to discredit his so called, "victims".....& I'm the one who is partisan, huh huh!:2razz:

 

[cnredd]

Hi cnredd, .....YOU are probably like a bad penny that just showed up for Kandahar!

He is CONVINCED that Cheney & company leaked info to discredit his so called, "victims".....& I'm the one who is partisan, huh huh!:2razz:

Actually, you're both two peas in the same pod...Pointing out his contradictions does not resolve you of yours...

 

[Kandahar]

Hi cnredd, .....YOU are probably like a bad penny that just showed up for Kandahar!

He is CONVINCED that Cheney & company leaked info to discredit his so called, "victims".....& I'm the one who is partisan, huh huh!:2razz:

You're the one who's claiming that any possible charges (when you don't even know what they are yet) are false, when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I have remained neutral as to whether or not a crime was committed since I don't have access to Fitzgerald's evidence.

 

[scottyz]

So it was ok to use a perjury trap to get Clinton, but it's not ok to do the same to Rove and Libby? Some magical law makes perjury legal for them? :lol:

 

[cnredd]

So it was ok to use a perjury trap to get Clinton, but it's not ok to do the same to Rove and Libby? Some magical law makes perjury legal for them? :lol:

As of right now, there is no perjury charge against them, so you are just using partisan rhetoric to get what you hope will be the truth...:roll:

 

[scottyz]

As of right now, there is no perjury charge against them, so you are just using partisan rhetoric to get what you hope will be the truth...:roll:

We should know for sure tomorrow if there will be any charges. What truth am I hoping to get? The point is the Starr wasn't able to get Clinton on the orignal charges but he was able to get him in a perjury trap. Sounds like Stu is saying that this strategy is an unacceptable way to get Rove or Libby indicted. I'm sure he didn't feel this way when it happened to Clinton. He sounds like Kay Bailey Hutchison atm.

 

[cnredd]

We should know for sure tomorrow if there will be any charges. What truth am I hoping to get? The point is the Starr wasn't able to get Clinton on the orignal charges but he was able to get him in a perjury trap. Sounds like Stu is saying that this strategy is an unacceptable way to get Rove or Libby indicted. I'm sure he didn't feel this way when it happened to Clinton. He sounds like Kay Bailey Hutchison atm.

Starr?...Nope...

Go a little higher...blame Reno...

On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Starr...Another falsity that became fact...Heaven forbid you go after a Democrat with your allegations of a "perjury trap"...:roll:

 

[scottyz]

Starr?...Nope...

Go a little higher...blame Reno...

On January 15, Starr obtained approval from General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Starr...Another falsity that became fact...Heaven forbid you go after a Democrat with your allegations of a "perjury trap"...:roll:

So when Whitewater didn't pan out Lucienne Goldberg got them a new charge to work with, what is your point? Why is it wrong to use a perjury trap to get Rove or Libby?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

My god, you are such an idiot.

[MOD MODE]
Let's skip these parts andjust get to talking about the argument that's at hand.
[/MOD MODE]

 

[Simon W. Moon]

IMHO, perjury's not a "trap," it's a crime. YMMV.
Character still counts.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Starr?...Nope...
Go a little higher...blame Reno...
On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
Starr...Another falsity that became fact...Heaven forbid you go after a Democrat with your allegations of a "perjury trap"...:roll:

So, we should hold Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey for any of the "secondary" charges that stem from this case(pdf) being investigated by his "close friend" Fitzgerald?

 

[Stinger]

Yeah -- how much did the Whitewater investigation cost? 43 million?

When you total up ALL the investigations that come under that umbrella, most of which had nothing to do with the other and most having more to do with Hillary than Bill. Travelgate, Filegate, Cattlegate, Chinagate, the original Watergate and of course Monicagate. And resulted in about 20 convictions including the sitting governor of Arkansas, the Deputy Director of the Justice Department, a sitting federal judge and some high ranking bankers in Arkansas. And then of course the contempt of court against Clinton and his plea bargin. AND the cost would have been much less if the Clinton's and their administration had cooperated, instead the engaging in a campaign to smear the prosecutor and anyone associated with the justice department and it's investigation. AS OPPOSED to the Bush administration which has cooperated fully and never ever attack Fitzgerald.

So what is your point?

 

[Stinger]

So it was ok to use a perjury trap to get Clinton, but it's not ok to do the same to Rove and Libby? Some magical law makes perjury legal for them? :lol:

What was the perjury trap? Clinton had already engaged in suborantion of perjury before Star even got involved. Clinton on his own with no prodding committed perjury in the deposition. Starr, with no requirement to do so, told Clinton before he testified in the Grand Jury that they had the dress and Clinton STILL perjured himself. So what "trap", Clinton did it all on his own, repeatedly and it wasn't a matter of a lapse of memory.